Redundantly, on the Charter matter – a few contributions
Day 810, 07:48
•
Published in Romania 
•
by
•
by Ion Vlahu
Premises:
As I already told some of you, I had, since my first article on this subject, the intention to elaborate a series of amendments to the actual Charter. Of course, this embodies my personal set of visions on the matter and it should only be regarded as a small theoretical contribution.
In my first article, I received some critiques regarding the excessive theorization of our actual status quo. My counterparts argued that there is no legal way to enforce a treaty and that is the reason the EDEN Charter is just a set of guiding principles based on some kind of “gentleman’s agreement”. Of course, from this perspective they were right. As there is no sword above our heads, there’s no actual way of reassuring that the law is going to be abided. Simplifying ... no coercive force, no law. This could be one of my premises, but it’s not. I am going to try to show you that even if there’s no coercive force, there can be law. At least, in this game...
Respect and necessity, not friendship!
The primary argument that binds us together is friendship. And in my ambassadorial career it’s a path I walked often. We help one another because we care for one another. True? False!
We help one another because some badasses joined together with the clear intention of kicking everyone else’s butts. That’s our main concern, that is why we became friends. Of course, some RL hate gave some distinctive lines of association. Many of you have an issue with Hungarians or Russians, and that is probably one of the reasons we fight each other. But what about the Serbs? Everybody loves Serbs in RL. Why did we end up in different boats? Why do we cherish Croatians so much? It probably has to do with the fact that we feel respected and helped. Right? Right.
Therefore, it’s not about friendship, it’s about respect and need (and fear, but we’ll discuss about it later). We want to be respected and helped, that’s why we’re all bound to each other (EDEN, I mean). Of course, friendship is a good PR stunt, and why not, in some cases, it really works. And now, let’s get to the point of this article.
What the hell is collective security and why do we do it?
“Collective security is a security arrangement in which all states cooperate collectively to provide security for all by the actions of all against any states within the groups which might challenge the existing order by using force”. That’s what Wikipedia says on the matter. Therefore, we do this shit so we can be safe from the badasses i talked earlier. But what entitles a President or the leadership of a state to join such a system? Who and what gives them the permission to do it?
Well, mates’, regarding the first question, the answer is simple. Fear is what drives us close to one another, fear ties our destinies together. But fear alone is not enough for one man to involve a nation in such a treaty. For that man to sign the allegiance of a people to an Alliance, he needs legitimacy. And he get’s that from his people.
This is my first concern regarding the EDEN Charter. In the preamble, the treaty talks about the presidents who signed it but it says nothing about the people. Romanians, Americans, Croatians, Swedes, etc. are the true signatories of the treaty, and they should be mentioned, for no individual can decide something that his people does not agree to.
A short story
I will ask you to be a little patient, because now I am going to talk about a real life issue. Spam, I know, but it’s important. After the Second World War ended Germany was torn to bits and pieces. The allies were so afraid of Germany that they decided to dismantle it, and for a little while, they did.
But soon, some of them started to realize that a larger threat comes from the East. The USSR had 5 million soldiers deployed across Europe, an army powerful enough to reach Belfast in a few weeks. And the west trembled with fear, so, they asked for American help. The Truman Administration saw the danger but it had its hands tied, because only the Congress was allowed to ratify any military agreement. So, behind closed doors, some American officials told their European counterparts to make a new European alliance, in order to persuade the Congress to help. And that’s what the Europeans did. They signed in 1948 a Treaty in Brussels, and the Western European Union (WEU) took shape. What is very interesting about this collective security treaty is the strong commitment to security. Article IV of the WEU treaty says:
“If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.”
Collective defense, EDEN style
Now let’s see the article in the EDEN Treaty: “3.0.1. In the case of a Member being attacked by a Hostile nation all other Members are obligated to provide military and economic support.”
As you can see, our article is less coercive than the one I already provided, and was enforced in RL. As far as I am concerned, I think that article 3.0.1. is similar to Washington’s Treaty, Article V (NATO), which says:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Well, let’s cut the real life mumbo-jumbo, and get back on track. My point is that article 3.0.1 should be clearer, because now is too interpretable. At the states “obligated to provide military and economic support” part, I would add “all the military and economic support they can”.
In the end
This is my last article regarding the EDEN Treaty, because I and, I’m sure, all of you are tired of reading about this topic. I’ve made my point, I think we should work a little on the text and on ways to enforce it but, now, I would strongly suggest to end our small domestic quarrel and help EDEN kick some chicken flambé.
P.S. Please excuse any grammatical or lexical errors that occurred during the writing of this article. Daca cineva doreste o traducere in limba romana a articolului, rog sa posteze un comment. Thank you.
As I already told some of you, I had, since my first article on this subject, the intention to elaborate a series of amendments to the actual Charter. Of course, this embodies my personal set of visions on the matter and it should only be regarded as a small theoretical contribution.
In my first article, I received some critiques regarding the excessive theorization of our actual status quo. My counterparts argued that there is no legal way to enforce a treaty and that is the reason the EDEN Charter is just a set of guiding principles based on some kind of “gentleman’s agreement”. Of course, from this perspective they were right. As there is no sword above our heads, there’s no actual way of reassuring that the law is going to be abided. Simplifying ... no coercive force, no law. This could be one of my premises, but it’s not. I am going to try to show you that even if there’s no coercive force, there can be law. At least, in this game...
Respect and necessity, not friendship!
The primary argument that binds us together is friendship. And in my ambassadorial career it’s a path I walked often. We help one another because we care for one another. True? False!
We help one another because some badasses joined together with the clear intention of kicking everyone else’s butts. That’s our main concern, that is why we became friends. Of course, some RL hate gave some distinctive lines of association. Many of you have an issue with Hungarians or Russians, and that is probably one of the reasons we fight each other. But what about the Serbs? Everybody loves Serbs in RL. Why did we end up in different boats? Why do we cherish Croatians so much? It probably has to do with the fact that we feel respected and helped. Right? Right.
Therefore, it’s not about friendship, it’s about respect and need (and fear, but we’ll discuss about it later). We want to be respected and helped, that’s why we’re all bound to each other (EDEN, I mean). Of course, friendship is a good PR stunt, and why not, in some cases, it really works. And now, let’s get to the point of this article.
What the hell is collective security and why do we do it?
“Collective security is a security arrangement in which all states cooperate collectively to provide security for all by the actions of all against any states within the groups which might challenge the existing order by using force”. That’s what Wikipedia says on the matter. Therefore, we do this shit so we can be safe from the badasses i talked earlier. But what entitles a President or the leadership of a state to join such a system? Who and what gives them the permission to do it?
Well, mates’, regarding the first question, the answer is simple. Fear is what drives us close to one another, fear ties our destinies together. But fear alone is not enough for one man to involve a nation in such a treaty. For that man to sign the allegiance of a people to an Alliance, he needs legitimacy. And he get’s that from his people.
This is my first concern regarding the EDEN Charter. In the preamble, the treaty talks about the presidents who signed it but it says nothing about the people. Romanians, Americans, Croatians, Swedes, etc. are the true signatories of the treaty, and they should be mentioned, for no individual can decide something that his people does not agree to.
A short story
I will ask you to be a little patient, because now I am going to talk about a real life issue. Spam, I know, but it’s important. After the Second World War ended Germany was torn to bits and pieces. The allies were so afraid of Germany that they decided to dismantle it, and for a little while, they did.
But soon, some of them started to realize that a larger threat comes from the East. The USSR had 5 million soldiers deployed across Europe, an army powerful enough to reach Belfast in a few weeks. And the west trembled with fear, so, they asked for American help. The Truman Administration saw the danger but it had its hands tied, because only the Congress was allowed to ratify any military agreement. So, behind closed doors, some American officials told their European counterparts to make a new European alliance, in order to persuade the Congress to help. And that’s what the Europeans did. They signed in 1948 a Treaty in Brussels, and the Western European Union (WEU) took shape. What is very interesting about this collective security treaty is the strong commitment to security. Article IV of the WEU treaty says:
“If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.”
Collective defense, EDEN style
Now let’s see the article in the EDEN Treaty: “3.0.1. In the case of a Member being attacked by a Hostile nation all other Members are obligated to provide military and economic support.”
As you can see, our article is less coercive than the one I already provided, and was enforced in RL. As far as I am concerned, I think that article 3.0.1. is similar to Washington’s Treaty, Article V (NATO), which says:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Well, let’s cut the real life mumbo-jumbo, and get back on track. My point is that article 3.0.1 should be clearer, because now is too interpretable. At the states “obligated to provide military and economic support” part, I would add “all the military and economic support they can”.
In the end
This is my last article regarding the EDEN Treaty, because I and, I’m sure, all of you are tired of reading about this topic. I’ve made my point, I think we should work a little on the text and on ways to enforce it but, now, I would strongly suggest to end our small domestic quarrel and help EDEN kick some chicken flambé.
P.S. Please excuse any grammatical or lexical errors that occurred during the writing of this article. Daca cineva doreste o traducere in limba romana a articolului, rog sa posteze un comment. Thank you.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Another great article on this matter, but I ask you this. Strategically speaking, how can a country commit everything it has to help an ally. Committing all of your resources in the aid of someone else leaves you vulnerable in case of attack. Does it not?
Ce de kkt de ce scrii in engleza noi suntem romani sa invete romana limba cuceritoare
@James Parker
You are right, of course. That is why i wrote the "they can" part. My text modification suggestion was just an idea. There are bright minds who can elaborate on that. Thanks for the kind words.
doamne, bre...scrii niste articole atat de docte, incat ma simt aiurea sa iti mai si dau vreun ordin😁
@sweeta
Ce-are scula cu prefectura. Articolele cu treaba lor si militaria cu treaba ei. Tu dai ordinul, eu execut. What's life whitout a chain of command. 😛
Oricum, multumesc pentru compliment.
"Ce de kkt de ce scrii in engleza noi suntem romani sa invete romana limba cuceritoare" Marsh inapoi in pestera!
Ca de obicei,foarte bun articolul,dar tradu-l si pentru "patrioti".
wow.inca un redactor infiltrat in erpb 😁
Define "they can". The concept has so many meanings, that without a clear and well-defined comprehension, it'll be, as now, futile.
As long as a nation, part of a defensive treaty, won't know what its "limits" are, it will act in its own interests, by minimising its military or economic actions, in order to preserve its strenght, to prevent an attack on its own territory or possession.
Anyway, Ion, a very good article. It seems that you set out to amaze us with every article that you write.
@Infatulus
Thanks, comrade. I feel privileged to have such interested audience. I am aware that the term i used is vague, and the terminology should be the subject of a thorough analysis. I just wanted to bring this problem to the public eye. Unfortunately, our leaders, weren't so eager to bring this issue up, for a debate. It's just me, and you guys. We'll have to do, for now. 😛
Inca un articol bun. Subscriu insa la comentariul facut de Infatulus.
Voted from Sweden. Interesting article. 🙂
great article...
It will be a long discussion on this
PS: if you are into it, you should look at Phoenix charter and compare with Eden 😉
Thx mates for your comments lads.
Diplomacy, i am into it, but i don't want to bore everybody here. As you can probably see, my first article was far better received by our fellow romanians. I think the EDEN business is out of the public agenda, for now, at least. And i don't know if it's a good idea to write in vain.
I hope that long discussion will come, although i'm not so confident...
These discussions should be brought to public, but that doesn't mean everyone should be competent. Don't be discouraged if you get a lower audience, these things matters, or they will.
birpaul